It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolutionst and Creationst Need Understanding

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
The evolution supporters on one hand explain that mankind has sprang from the ameba single cell. Look at what Darwin says:

www.victorianweb.org...

On the other hand, the creationsts, usually religion plays a part in this theory, state the Earth can only be approximately six thousand years old.

bible.gospelcom.net...

What if I told you, you were both correct in a sense and both wrong in another? Now that I have your attention, I'll try to explain how science and religion need to come to terms with each other in the understanding of the world and the history of mankind.

Darwin is absolutely correct in all he states about a continual struggle for a species to continue to exist through evolution of the species. We are continually fighting old and new virus and bacteria strains due to this replication occurring. We even have a name for it and the changing of the structure through RNA thanks inpart to Charles Darwin's theory.

At the same time palenthology, geology and many other fields of science shows us that the Earth is many millions of years old. We can even label these through the use of carbon dating. Is carbon dating correct? It is the closest thing we have to being accurate at this point. And Carbon dating isn't going to set a date of two million plus or minus two million. It does narrow in much closer than this.

Now comes the creation/religion account of how the Earth must be only appoximately 6,000 years old inspite of what science shows as irrefutible evidence of the contrary. Reminds me of the days when Capernicus, Galileo, Michaelangelo and etc were being persecuted by the church. The religionst still want to throw evidence out the window and rely on their own silly interpretations of what the scriptures are saying. Burn the heritics of evolution at the stake, they must be practicing witchcraft!

Gensis opens with ... in the beginning, the Earth was without form and void... Now that really clearly defines how old the Earth is and Carbon Dating has to agree to this, doesn't it?

The first of Gensis may not even be dealing with the actually beginning of the Earth but more precisely the time after a Catachesmic event. This event could have saparted our orbiting moon from the Earth. It could have been a time when Atlantis blew the hell out of the Earth as we are about to approach again.

He created this that and the other during six days. How about time periods? The first day could be 500M years, the second day 250M years, the third day125M years, the forth day75M years. The seventh day of rest could be another 500M years. The story in any of the books of antiquity do not mention dinosaurs. Yet they exist as we do. Carbon dating shows them to be several million years old.

Mankind could have been walking on the Earth in that time millions of years ago and does not refute the books of old that appear to contradict. In the sixth day, God created man. It did not say Adam. It said man. If Adam had been the first man and no where does it say this, then how do we get CroMagnon and Neanderthal man? My ancestor was Adam, not Mister Neanderthal or Mister CroMagnon.

If Adam were the first man and Eve the first woman, then when Cain slew Able why did he have to have a mark placed on his forehead so that none should harm him when he was set apart from his God, Mother and Father? There would be no one to kill him or hurt him as he did his brother. Yet, later on we read that Cain married and had childern of his own. Whose the wife? As I understand, it takes a good woman to perform that miracle.

Back to evolution. Darwin never spoke about zebras or raccoons becoming the next higher order of intelligence through their specific species' evolution. He never mentioned Apes becoming men. He stated that the species will evolve to continue the struggle of life as long as possible. Creation of the species did occur and so does evolution of the species. They don't jump boundaries. If any of the so-called boundaries are jumped, they all within that spicies make the leap such as birds once being a particular dinosaur species. Now they are all a bird species not dinosaurs.

Again, I say stop interpreting Darwin and evolution wrongly. You are not doing either justice. And, I say again, stop reading your own thoughts into the Bible or other religious readings or books of Antiquity, they are not always the same understanding the original author was trying to express.

The Bible is extremely accurate if understood in the true context of what the Author was trying to relate or express. Science and the many fields are the same, extremely accurate. No one wants to purposely believe a lie. Where's the rub if we harmonize a little in our understanding fo life.

Just a though as we are venturing into space once again. Go NASA!




posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   
*please excuse my light tone here, but this is all just too peachy*
Biblical creation cannot be compromised with Modern Evolutionary Theory for many reasons.
You are certainly not the first to say they two can be combined.
Hugh Ross from Reasons to Believe and his organization have been trying to compromise the two for ages.

First off Darwin was wrong.

Anways... The two cannot be combined though on several accounts.
The order.
In the Biblical Creation account:
Day 1: God created light.
Day 2: Then he created the seas and the air.
Day 3: Dry ground and vegetation
Day 4: Sun moon and stars
Day 5: Birds and fish
Day 6: Animals and humans

The Modern Evolutionary Theory (which is usually binded with the Big Bang Theory) has it more like...
light/sun/moon/stars/see/air/ground....algae/fish/birds/humans/animals... etc. or something of the sort.

Even if you made the case the "days" referred to millions of years, it would still be out of order, so someone is wrong.
However, you can't make the case that "day" means more than a solar cycle for in Genesis 1:19 (after creation on day four) "...there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day".
Another reason for which this case cannot be made is that the same word "day" is used in the fourth of the ten commandments in Exodus 20:8-11, where God said labor for six day and on the sevent, honor the Sabbath and keep it holy. The commmandment would not make sense if God meant work for 60 million years then rest for a million.

The two cannot simply coexist.
and in compromising Scriptural authority, you make way for the contortion of truth, which is sin.

You tried to sound all sly with you little introduction and tickled our ears so we can hear thoughts of so-called "peace" but this is nothing but a sham and a disgrace as you deny the intergity of God's Word.
I pray you read what has been written hear and heed wisdom.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   
first of all I have to point out that I take the bible in faith. so when and if I say that you are wrong. that means that is in my opinion.
I would have to disagree with your theory on the days being millions of years. in Exodus 20:11 it says "for in six days the Lord had made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is..."

the bible clearly states that it was done in six days.

Jesus was not in the grave for 3 million years. not even 3,000 years. he was in the grave for 3 days. the days are the same throughout the bible. the Gap theory does not fit the bible. Lucifer did not fall from heaven until after the creation. if God made everything in 6 days and then said that everything was very good, but the devil was in eden running around as a bad guy, God would be lying to say that everything was very good.


Carbon dating does not work, it had been proven not to work when they know the age of things and test the dates on those things, it is assumed to work on things with unknown date such as the earth.

Dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible, they are not called dinosaur. the word dinosaur was made up within the past 150 (I think, but it wasnt too long ago)
dinosaurs used to be called dragons. look up dragons in the bible and you will find that dragons are mentioned about 19 times in the bible.

if you havent read romans 5:12 it basically says that mans sin brought death into the world. if you have death before sin, you now have yourself a heiracy, if the bible is absolutely true (which is what I believe). Romans 5:14 says that even those who have not sinned die because of adams sin. now this verse it talking about the animals. they dont sin., they dont know right from wrong. God cursed the ground and from the ground were all animals and man created.it makes sense.

Gensis 1:1 says "In the Beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth."
THE BEGINNING means the beginning. that means that there was nothin before they beginning. there was no time, there was no space and there was no matter. by the way all three have to come into existance at the same time.
The bible answers that in 10 words, GEN 1:1

I dont know what else to say, im not saying you are wrong in believing what you believe, im just trying to help you better understand the bible and what it means.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   
oh yeah I forgot to add. that in the bible it says that after adam begat seth he begat sons and daughters. in the first couple of generations, they had the option of marrying sisters. its not a problem in the first generation, there is nothin wrong with the DNA or anything else in the Gene pool, nothin deformed.

so cain probably married a sister. it does not say that cain went out and found his wife, it just says that he knew his wife. it doesnt say he found here there.
adam lived over 900 years. you can have a lot of kids in 900 years. Kim bob douger had 13 kids in 13 years.
so to get a population of thousands in a few centuries is not impossible in even the first generation.

of course this is all according to the bible. which I take by faith and believe to be absolutley true.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I totally forgot about the carbon dating haha
Yes, carbon dating is considered inaccurate after about 5000 years or so. But even so, it is not fully accurate.
The arguement you should've used there would've been argon or some other radioactive isotope lol.
Anyways though, the deal with radiometric dating is that it is assuming God created creation without variables in that the remainder of the isotope will always match the theorized proper amount for it's half-life. The problem is that some artifacts and certainly people simply have rich concentrations of such isotopes therefore radiometric dating falls short. Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore part of your post there.

By the way the Bible is non-fiction and I'll stick by that from now till eternity.

[edit on 26-7-2005 by Tassadar]



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   


The first of Gensis may not even be dealing with the actually beginning of the Earth but more precisely the time after a Catachesmic event. This event could have saparted our orbiting moon from the Earth. It could have been a time when Atlantis blew the hell out of the Earth as we are about to approach again.



That, reminds me of




"Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?"

ESV



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   
in reply to tassadar.
I would like to give you a few examples of carbon dating not working.

1. living mollusk shells carbon dated at 2300 years old
Reference: Science Volume 141 pg 634-637 by M. Keith and G Anderson

2. Freshly killed seal carbon dated at 1300 years old.
Reference: Antarctic Journal Volume 6 page 211 in 1971 setp-oct.

3. living snails carbon dated 27,000 years old.
Reference: Science Volume 224 in 1984 on pages 51-61

these are some examples, there have been examples of carbon dating two parts of the same animal and getting thousands of years in difference, like when they dated the hairy mammoths

thanks



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   
my post was to read "inaccurate" not "in accurate"
it has been edited.
I believe we share the same view on this issue.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
1. living mollusk shells carbon dated at 2300 years old
2. Freshly killed seal carbon dated at 1300 years old.
3. living snails carbon dated 27,000 years old.

I do have to say that these are examples wherein the method was used in such a way that was known to be incorrect. So perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that one gets screwy results when the method is improperly used.

And rather than being inaccurate, carbon dating can be very accurate. We can independantly check results from carbon dating with other, completely independant methods of radio-isotopic dating. And we can also check the tree growth ring record (another accurate dating method) and compare it to results obtained from carbon dating. Man can also calibrate, fine tune, his carbon dating techniques with that tree ring record.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
And rather than being inaccurate, carbon dating can be very accurate. We can independantly check results from carbon dating with other, completely independant methods of radio-isotopic dating. And we can also check the tree growth ring record (another accurate dating method) and compare it to results obtained from carbon dating. Man can also calibrate, fine tune, his carbon dating techniques with that tree ring record.


so what? what difference does it make?
none. These trees only lived a few hundred or thousand years, maybe...
Radiometric dating is only accurate if the presumed ratios of certain isotopes are correct. Atmospheric or growth complications can contort that ratio. This link has a good explanation of the problems with radiometric datig: bric.users.ftech.net...

You gain no ground for any old-earth theory at all here by that statement. It amounts to nothing



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tassadar
These trees only lived a few hundred or thousand years, maybe...

Here is a page that deals with this.

Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb (MNSU n.d.; Watson 2001). Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques (e.g., Bard et al. 1990).


Radiometric dating is only accurate if the presumed ratios of certain isotopes are correct.

There is no evidence that the asumed ratios are incorrect, and the corroboration of other independant radio-isotopic dating methods with one another, their agreement even tho they are completely independant, suggests that there is not a coordinated problem with all the different methods.

This link has a good explanation of the problems with radiometric datig: bric.users.ftech.net...

Most of it seemed to be concnerned with equating the neanderthals with the nephilim of the bible, and a big part of its arguement was that neanderthals are not decrepit dimwitted brutes.
also from it

This chart [the geologic column] cannot be found in nature, it is theoretical, pieced together from various inter-related strata from all over the world.

This is absolutely incorrect. The geological colum was generally worked out before darwin, by geologists who were basically creationists. It exists, in total, in several locations throughout the world.


A case of two theories being cross referenced in order to establish a so called fact??

The relative ages of the geologic strata in the colum were figured out before darwin was around,a nd long before the detial chronologies of the 'biostratiagraphically useful' organisms were learned. And the numerous radiometric dating methods agree independantly with the relative ages from the colum and biostratigraphy.


This dating test relies entirely on knowing exactly what the original ratio mix of C14 to C12 is or was. The clock is only accurate if the ratio is the same today as when the organism lived and remained constant during its life and after its death right up to the time of dating.

But the system has been calibrated, and indeed only a small calibration ends up being required from the tree ring 'dendrochronology'. I also notice that most of the researchers that they mention in the text as being 'wrong' are from the '40s and '60s. And the things that they are 'wrong' about are things that have been corrected and accountde for andfound to not be problems that threw off the dates and method significantly anyway. here too is a page on the issue of original ratios:

The variability of the C-14/C-12 ratio, and the need for calibration, has been recognized since 1969 (Dickin 1995, 364-366). Calibration is possible by analyzing the C-14 content of items dated by independent methods. Dendrochronology (age dating by counting tree rings) has been used to calibrate C-14/C-12 ratios back more than 11,000 years before the present (Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991). C-14 dating has been calibrated back more than 30,000 years by using uranium-thorium (isochron) dating of corals (Bard et al. 1990; Edwards et al. 1993), and to 45,000 yeas ago by using U-Th dates of glacial lake varve sediments (Kitagawa and van der Plicht 1998).


I'll agree that god could've designed a world in which there will be an 'appearance' of old age, but not that there isn't at least this appearance, not withou real refuation of the principles involved.

[edit on 26-7-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 01:09 AM
link   


And rather than being inaccurate, carbon dating can be very accurate. We can independantly check results from carbon dating with other, completely independant methods of radio-isotopic dating.


what about when they check to see if it works when the age is known and get results that do not reflect the object they are testing?

carbon dating does not work because the atmosphere has not reached equilibrium of radioactive carbon14 particles. the ratio is constantly increasing. you need the atmosphere to be in equilibrium with C14 particles in order to get an accurate result.
I dont know if you know how carbon dating works, but you will notice that the assumption is made where the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has always been the same or has reached equilibrium.. you would have to make that assumption in order to believe carbon dating to works. because if there was only half the amount of C14 in the atmosphere 1,000 years ago, that would give an inaccurate date to something of that age.

I dont know if this post made sense to anyone, if you want me to try to better explain it, let me know.

thanks



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
what about when they check to see if it works when the age is known and get results that do not reflect the object they are testing?

That happens when they use the method improperly, like trying to carbon date seal meat or clams.


carbon dating does not work because the atmosphere has not reached equilibrium of radioactive carbon14 particles.

The equilibrium is not relevant. It only ever threw the dating off by a small amount, and that non-equilibrium is what is handled by the tree-ring calibration and the other calibration methods.


you need the atmosphere to be in equilibrium with C14 particles in order to get an accurate result.

When you know the degree to which it is in non-equilibrium you get more accurate results. Without knowing it, without the calibration, you still get accurate results.



I dont know if you know how carbon dating works, but you will notice that the assumption is made where the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has always been the same or has reached equilibrium

There is a dating method called the isochron method which infact is independant of the original amounts. But, again, we know the atmostpheric concentrations, and we can calibrate for them from these other records.


.. you would have to make that assumption in order to believe carbon dating to works.

You also have to assume that every single dating method has been randomly 'thrown off' in precisely such a way that they all give ages that are in near complete agreement with one another, whether its tree-ring dating, 'varve' dating, ice pack dating, carbon, argon, potatium, uranium, etc radio-dating, or even relative geo-stratiagraphic dating and relative bio-stratiagraphic dating. That is simply not beleivable.



[edit on 27-7-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Dr Adam Rutherford has written several books on the subject of antiquity in the Bible. The book that I will refer to is called strangely enough, 'Bible Chronology'. It was published by C Tinling and Co. Liverpool, London. in 1957. Starting at chapter XI page 167 through page 203, it explains the birth, ages of life and death of these men of antiquity. He references this book as information coming from the Royal Tyrrell British Library in England, 'the world's greatest treasure house'. He is also indebted to scholars in Britian, America, and France for their assistance.

Adam lived 930 years. He was created by God in 5407 BC, Anno Adami 1 on the Autumnal Equinox, died 4477 BC.
Seth lived 912 years. He was born 5177 BC, Anno Adami 231, died 4265 BC.
Enos (Enosh) lived 905 years. He was born 4972 BC, Anno Adami 436, died 4067.
Cainan lived 910 years. He was born 4782 BC, Anno Adami 626, died 3872 BC.
Mahalaleel lived 895 years. He was born 4612 BC, Anno Adami 796, died 3717 BC.
Jared lived 962 years. He was born 4447 BC, Anno Adami 961, died 3485 BC.
Enoch lived on Earth 365 years. He was born 4285 BC, Anno Adami 1123. He was translated by God in 3920 BC.
Methuselah lived 969 years. He was born on 4120 BC, Anno Adami 1288. He died on the Autumnal Equixnox 3145 BC.
Lamek (Lamech) lived 777 years. He was born 3933 BC, Anno Adami 1475, died 3156 BC.
Noah lived 950 years. He was born 3745 BC, Anno Adami 1663, died 2795 BC.
Shem lived 600 years. He was born 3243 BC, Anno Adami 2165, died 2643 BC.
The Great Flood began October 31, 3145 BC lasted 40 days and ended December 12, 3145 BC.

You don't need to be a scholar to understand this book. Dr Adam Rutherford continues with the chronology that makes this apparent to even the most simpliest of readers.

Simple me, I read this book and cannot find an error as the author proves the Chronology of the Bible from front to end. If you can find the book and are interested in such, purchase it. He does a fine job of proof.

Some people believe the Bible in a literal kind of sense. Some areas should be taken that way. When the Bible says 6 days or years then the Earth cannot be over 6000 years old. Apparently Adam is now, presently, approximately 7700 years since his birth. How can this be? There must be a problem but can we really know where the problem lies? Sure and it isn't in Rutherford's master piece.

Don't take my word for it. Read this facinating book. It is worth the study of understanding Dr. Rutherford's analytical mind as he delves into Babylon, Assyrian, Summerian, Egyptian, Medo-Persian and Israelite cultures and historical readings.

The Earth is either older than 6000 years or Adam was created on a different planet and transported here out of the Garden. But wait, that can't be true either because all me above Noah were born prior to the first 1700 years. Somehow 1700 years is missing in the futile attempts to conjecture a 6000 years of Earth history.

That blows the 6000 year theory out of the water without tree rings or carbon dating.
Any other ideas?
I think we are starting to get closer to the understanding of some truths.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Carbon dating works by and large, with maybe some exceptions. Scientists don't like using unreliable tools. It takes the joy out of doing science. Like trying to shave with a cheese grater.

The again, it's quite indicative of the creationist view of the world, that people are hung on the evolution per se, and on quotes from the Bible which states its was 6 days etc. The universe around us is a lot richer than just the Earth' biosphere. There are miriads of phenomena that can't be explained within the 6000 years time horizon. You'd have to imagine that God would somehow play a practical joke on us humans -- created a world that's pretty much consistent with a 11 billion year age, in a lot of detail big and small (large structured in the sky etc., aging process of stars and other objects, craters on Venus and miriads of other things), and yet -- God did all of this only 6000 years ago. I don't believe God would do this.

If you are taking the Bible literally, you dumb down God's creation, and he won't be pleased with you.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
You are correct Aelita, cheese grater and all. Like in the movie show 'A Few Good Men' You can't handle the truth. Jack N was very good as the Colonel.

In a literal sense, Christ Did Not spend seventy-two hours, three days in the tomb. The date of the Crucifixion occurred Nisan 14, 33 AD. I forgot, most don't know the Hebrew calendar. It fell on April 3, 33 AD. Passover was Saturday, the next day, Nisan 15, April 4, 33 AD. He arose early Nisan 16, 33 AD.

The body of any Hebrew/Israelite/Jew under their religion had to burried prior to the Passover day Or it would defile the Passover. Christ died at around 3 PM on Friday, April3, 33 AD, Nisan 14. There was a full moon that night and a great storm and Earthquake occurred that afternoon.

Joseph of Arimathia, being the next of Kinsman, asked Potius Pilot for permission to take down the body of Christ after the death had been verified by the guards. They quickly buried Christ in Joseph of Arimathia's grave tomb and rolled a stone before the entry to secure it from animals.

The reason the body had to be buried prior to 6 PM is due to the Hebrew Laws of Passover. In Hebrew, everyday began at 6 PM not 12 midnight like ours. If Christ were put in quickly, this would explain why the women wanted to visit the empty tomb early Sunday morning - to cleanse the body properly for burial after Passover.

From 3 PM throught all day Saturday until the following Sunday morning was not three days. It was barely 33 hours give or take an hour. But, that is okay because the Bible states the Third Day he arose from the dead not after three days or three thousand years.

The Bible must be read with understanding of what the author is trying to impart in knowledge to us. Christ deciples stated to him, 'Why do you talk in parables?' His answer, 'Least they hear with their ears and see with their eyes and I must heal them. It wasn't time for the people to know. But he charged his deciples to understand. And eventually they did.

If you ever want to know when the True Easter should occur for any given year, just check for the first full moon after the Vernal (Spring) Equinox. The closest Sunday to that first full moon will be the closest we can get to the true Easter. Once in a while our Gregorian calendar lines up properly and sometime they even guess the true Easter.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   
ok about carbon dating...

if the earths atmosphere has not yet reached equilibrium, and you compare the amount of C14 in the object to the amount of C14 in the atmosphere, of course you are going to get millions of years. there was less C14 to begin with.

the atmosphere needs to remain constant in order for carbon dating to work. the atmosphere is gaining radioactiuve C14 faster than it decays. it has not reached equilibrium.

if the percentage of radioactive C14 is constantly increasing, that means that there used to be less, and if there used to be less, things that died a while ago would have way less C14 in them than it should.

thats why carbon dating does not work.

if you want to believe that it works, thats fine. Carbon dating has been proven to not work on things of known age. but assumed to work on things with unknown age.


God created the world in Six literal days. the bible says he did. and I believe that.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
thats why carbon dating does not work.

Carbon dating does work. I think we talked about this in a thread earlier today so I will just give some references for the moment.

Radiometric dating falsely assumes initial conditions are known.
Radiometric dating falsely assumes rocks are closed systems.
Carbon dating gives inaccurate results.
A freshly killed seal was C-14 dated at 1,300 years old..
Ancient coal and oil are C-14 dated as only 50,000 years old.
U-Th dating gives inaccurate results for modern volcanic rocks.
Zircons retain too much helium for an old earth.
Polonium haloes indicate a young earth.
Radiometric dating falsely assumes that rates are constant.
Short-lived isotopes Th-230 and U-236 exist on the moon.

These are all brief discussions of the topics indicated, usually with links to longer and more detailed articles. They have a citation for the above arguments in the creationist literature and give citations for the explanations in the scientific literature.


Carbon dating has been proven to not work on things of known age.

Carbon dating, like anything else, will not work when used in ways that are known not to work. Thats why the examples usually cited give weird results, because they were selected because it was known that the method wouldn't work on them.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   
OR
Are there assumptions made?

There are assumptions in all the dating methods.

The numbers produced are not fact. We came to this conclusion in that thread in the Sci-Tech forum



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Here's another dilemma for the literal translation theorists.

Christ says 'Peter before the cock crows twice you will deny me thrice'.
Peter denied him at the least, Eleven (11) times before the cock crowed twice.

Ever play the game called 'Clue' where:
Mister Butler did it in the Library with an Axe. Or
MS Scarlett likes to do it in the Bedroom with a differnt kind of tool?

Anyway, apply the same literal understanding to the four books of the new testament and guess what? Peter was always in a different place, talking to a different person and answering a denial of a different question similar to clue. It breaks down into a matrix of a Eleven different denials.

Now Christ said Trice or three denials. So, it must only be three. Yet there at least (11) Eleven denials by Peter. This is why he wept so bitterly. He dienied Christ as a man and friend, a teacher, and the Son of the Living God for a total of eleven times. There is a Big inconsistancy for literally reading accounts in the Bible.

Try having the four books, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John opened at the same time. Read the denial accounts very closely and take the meaning very literal. It is Eleven diffirent denials.

Sorry to rain on the literal parade but if the shoe fits. It isn't 6000 years and it isn't 3 days in the tomb. But, it is an excellent book of Devine Prophesy that I read and try to understand each and every day.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join